It may be possible, in the wake of George W. Bush's convincing
win in this year's Presidential election, to begin to isolate some of
the characteristics of the "liberal mind" that made it possible
for Republicans, not only to win the Presidency, but to increase their
majorities by (at least) four seats in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives. While Republican initiative and bold strategizing certainly
played a significant role in their winning the election decisively, other
factors, including what can be described as the cast of the liberal mind,
certainly also weighed heavily in determining the election's outcome.

The Left's Response
We might begin to analyze the liberal mind by looking at liberals' responses
to their candidate's defeat. Among the dubious indulgences I allowed myself
on the day after Election Day was listening for upwards of 20 minutes
to an "Air America" (so they choose to call themselves, though
they're further from representing what America stands for than a French
diplomat) radio talk show co-hosted by Liz Winstead, Chuck D, and Rachel
Maddow. While I was listening, word came into their studio that John Kerry
had called President Bush to concede the election. By this time, it had
become obvious that the remaining 150,000 or so uncounted ballots in Ohio
would have to break about 96% Kerry to 4% Bush in order for Kerry to win
the state of Ohio, and so the election was effectively lost to the Democrats.

Liz, Rachel, and Chuck expressed their anger at the very
idea of Kerry's conceding the election, saying — despite VP candidate
John Edwards' insistence, in the face of overwhelming defeat, that "every
vote would be counted" — that they thought the Democrats should
contest every last vote in every last state in order to bring to light
the widespread voter fraud the knew had to have been perpetrated by Republicans,
which fraud was the only thing that could possibly have resulted in a
Bush victory. Further discussion saw these three stroking liberal America
for all the progress "the movement" had made in the past seven
months (thus implying that "the struggle" by the left for the
hearts and minds of Americans had only begun with the inception of Air
America itself) toward toppling imperialist, corporate, war-mongering
America. Ho-hum.

But besides the fairly predictable and sophomoric response
of the Air America "pundits" (scare quotes reflect my conviction
that so amateurish and emotion-driven is what passes for legitimate commentary
on Air America that it has a hell of a long way to go before it rises
even to the level of punditry), it has become clear that the Democrats
are not willing, at this point, to step back and take an honest look at
the real reasons they got their collective clock cleaned in this election.

No, the party of the politics of anger — the party
whose message was presented by such informed and articulate celebrity
spokespeople as Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Bruce Springsteen, and
Al Franken (to mention only a few) — doesn't seem to want to admit
that it is seriously out of touch with the values and ideals that a majority
of Americans hold dear. Even the fact that 11 states (including Oregon,
which consistently and dangerously flirts with adopting a socialist government
at the state level) voted overwhelmingly and emphatically to tell the
world that to their citizens marriage can only be entered into by a man
and a woman seems not to have dented the zeal, utterly religious in its
fundamentalist intensity, with which liberals are bound to impose their
worldview on the citizens of the United States.

And Speaking of Religious Zeal...
Among the characteristics of the liberal mind is its categorical similarity
to what can be called the religious fundamentalist mind. Liberals, like
many cult followers and religious fundamentalists, are extremely weak
where what I would describe as "reality testing" is concerned.
Which is to say that they maintain their convictions even in the face
of overwhelming evidence in the real world that their convictions are
not producing desirable results.

The Democrats have not done a serious re-examination of
either their political message or their tendency to promote abrasive (not
to say, anti-American) people to positions of leadership for many years.
John Kerry is, of course, a prime example of, in this instance, their
choosing a northern liberal to carry the party's hopes. It didn't work
with Michael Dukakis, George McGovern, and Fritz Mondale, and it didn't
work with John Kerry. Liberals are so out-of-touch with what "red
America" (to adopt the nomenclature of current political analysis,
which designates by the color red those states — even those counties
— which vote Republican) believes that it's almost embarrassing
to listen to their gloss on the election vis a vis this subject. In a
nutshell, the Democrat Party spokespeople I've heard since the election
have continued to imply, if not to insist, that the fault lies with the
American people, that they're simply a bit too obtuse and too religious
and too uninformed to really grasp the Democrat message. It's not that
the message is flawed; it is that the people to whom it is broadcast are
flawed. It's the old "pearls before swine" story, only this
time it's the so-called "swine" (read "middle Americans")
who grasp the true import of the issues at hand. Democrats can continue
to cast their "pearls" for all they're worth, we swine are just
not ready to appreciate them.

With regard to the aforementioned "reality testing,"
liberals share an inability to perceive external reality for what it is,
and they share this shortcoming with many cult followers. Indeed, it is
virtually a requirement of surrendering to cultist thinking that one refuse
to acknowledge the validity of what most of us recognize as the real world.
It is fashionable today, among the followers of certain highly suspect
belief systems, to assert that "the individual 'creates' his or her
own reality" and that "the individual's keeping his/her vision
of a desired outcome constantly in mind will result in that reality's
being manifested in the external world." This is very similar to
what the Democrats did in the 2004 election, and it, of course, produces
similar predictably disastrous results.

Now, while I have no quarrel with anyone's having a purpose
in life and holding in their minds a vision of what they wish to become
or accomplish, I do question the validity of any belief system that insists
that one should maintain that vision even as it results in an outcome
which closely resembles a train wreck. That is pretty much what the Democrats
have brought about by trying to push on the American people a version
of the American dream that is in fact not much more than an out-or-date,
out-of-touch socialist program for the ascension to enormous power over
Americans' lives of the Federal Government.

Bottom line: Cult followers have to ignore the fact that
the reality of their real-world lives is imploding as they pursue their
notion of creating their own personal "realities," and Democrats
have to ignore the fact that, in every national election since 1994 they
have lost more and more power to Republicans by flogging the same tired
and inapplicable message to the American people. Recent reality testing,
in the form of a United States election, has shown that, if they wish
to thrive, even to survive, Democrats had better come out their my-reality-is-the-only-valid-reality
shell and begin to adopt real-world tactics and strategies that actually
do deliver their desired outcomes.

Until they do, expect them to continue to scratch their
heads with a who-are-those-guys-anyway look on their faces as Republicans,
representing the true America, continue to spirit away from them elections
and political influence. Until the Dems truly do "get it" and
jettison their tired socialist message and the angry "leaders"
who insist on perpetuating it, count on more of the same.